Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: Cawdery Kaye Fireman and Taylor v Minkin [2012] EWCA Civ 546

Sep 29, 2018, 21:31 PM
Slug : 2012EWCACiv546
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 8, 2012, 09:07 AM
Article ID : 98781

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Stanley Burnton, Elias LJJ, Senior Costs Judge Master Hurst; 1 May 2012)

The husband instructed solicitors during divorce proceedings and received a quote of £3000 plus vat for representation in hearing of his wife's application for a non-molestation and ouster order. Proceedings were far more complicated than anticipated and the solicitors sent the husband a bill for £5,472.50. The husband refused to pay and the solicitors ceased working on his behalf. The costs judge found the husband had reasonable justification for not paying his bill because the solicitors had suspended work on the husband's case and the bill exceeded the estimate.

The solicitors' appeal was upheld because the husband had no advance warning that the bill would exceed the estimate and the solicitors in breach of contract in terminating their services.

The appeal to the Court of appeal was allowed. The solicitors' standard terms of business included with the initial quote stated that the quote was not fixed or binding and could vary depending on the complexity of the case. It was not reasonable for the husband to expect the solicitors to wait for payment until he had a costs order in his favour. The unexpected complications could not justify non-payment of the bill. The husband was obliged to pay as per the terms of business.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from